UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. $10,000 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY
Filing
9
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE that Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Default Judgment and a Final Order of Forfeiture is granted against the Defendant curency, etc. ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 2/21/14. (gmd, )
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No.: 13-5970 (JLL)
Plaintiff,
v.
$10,000 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FINAL
ORDER OF FORFEITURE
Defendant in
rem.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of the Government’s motion for default
judgment and for a final order of forfeiture pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 [Docket
Entry No. 5], and it appearing that:
I.
On October 8, 2013, the Government filed a Verified Complaint for forfeiture in
rem and a warrant for arrest in rem, and on October 18, 2013, copies of the Verified Complaint for
forfeiture in rem, warrant for arrest in rem and a Notice of Forfeiture were sent via certified mail,
return receipt requested to Peter Manna, Register No. 29865-050, Federal Correctional Institution
Elton, Post Office Box 10, Libson, Ohio. (Percell Dccl.,
¶
4). Peter Manna confirms that he
received the Verified Complaint for forfeiture in rem, a warrant for arrest in rem, and a Notice of
Forfeiture on or about October 24, 2013.
(Docket Entry No. 5-2). The Notice of Forfeiture
specifically informed Manna that, pursuant to Rule G(5)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain
Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and 18 U.S.C.
§
983(a)(4)(A), any person claiming an interest in the Defendant currency was
required to file a verified statement of interest on or before November 22, 2013. The Notice also
provided that “[i]n addition, any person having filed such a conforming Claim must also file an
Answer to the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem or a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an
Answer under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within 21 days after filing the
conforming Claim.” (Docket Entry No. 3).
2.
As no answer or motion in lieu of an answer had been filed, on January 16, 2014,
default was entered against the Defendant currency for failure to appear and/or defend. Plaintiff
subsequently tiled the instant motion for default judgment and an order of forfeiture pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.
3.
No timely opposition was filed.
However, Manna did file two documents on
February 7, 2014: (a) a request to dismiss the instant action and/or to consolidate it with his
criminal case, Criminal No. 10126 (Docket Entry No. 6), and (b) a document entitled “Verified
Claim” (Docket Entry No. 7).
4.
To contest a judicial forfeiture, a claimant must satisfy the standing requirements
of Article III and the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), 18 U.S.C.
§ 983 et seq.
United States v. $487,825.00 in US. Currency, 484 F. 3d 662, 664 (3d Cir. 2007). “Statutory
standing is a threshold issue that determines whether a party is properly before the court.” United
States v. $8,221,877.16 in US. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 150 n. 9 (3d Cir. 2003) (emphasis in
original). “In order for [Manna) to have statutory standing to challenge the civil forfeiture action,
[he] must comply with the requirements set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, particularly Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i). The most
important requirement is the timely filing of a verified statement of interest. The timely filing of
2
a verified statement of interest allows the court to hear all interested parties and to resolve the
dispute without delay, and it also minimizes the danger of false claims. We have emphasized that
forfeiture claimants must strictly adhere to the filing requirements to perfect statutory standing.”
United States v. $102,535.00 in US. Currency, 499 Fed. Appx. 134, 137 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing
United States v. $487,825.000 in US. Currency, 484 F.3d 662, 664 (3d Cir. 2007)).
The
requirement that the claimant file a timely verified statement “is no mere procedural technicality.”
Id. “A claimant who fails to file a verified statement has no standing to contest a forfeiture.” Id.
5.
Here, Manna did not file a timely verified statement. Instead, on November 22,
2013—the date on which the verified statement of interest was due—he filed a motion for
summary judgment in his criminal case. (Crim. No. 10-126, Docket Entry No. 34). This motion
for summary judgment does not qualify as a verified statement.
Rather, it presents legal
arguments in opposition to the Government’s Verified Complaint for forfeiture. Although Manna
asserts, generally, in his motion for summary judgment that at the time of his arrest, he had
$10,000.00 in his possession, Manna did not verify, under penalty of perjury, that he was the lawful
owner of the money, as required by Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i). To be clear, he did not verify his claim
by stating, for example, his understanding that any false statements made therein were subject to
penalties. See, e.g., $102,535.00 in US. Currency, 499 Fed. Appx. at 137.
6.
Although Manna attempted to file the required verified statement of interest on
February 7, 2014, there is no question that this filing was untimely. See, e.g., $487825.000 in
US. Currency, 484 F.3d at 665 n. 4 (“Even if the affirmation could overcome all of the obstacles
discussed here and qualify as a verified statement, it was still not filed timely.”). It bears noting
that Manna claims (in his November 22, 2013 motion for summary judgment) that the Government
3
improperly delayed in bringing the civil forfeiture action and/or that this forfeiture action is
untimely.’ Even assuming, arguendo, that there was some delay, there is no indication that any
such delay affected Manna’s ability to timely file a verified statement of interest, nor does he allege
that it did. See, e.g., $102,535.00 in US. Currency, 499 Fed. Appx. at 137. To the contrary,
‘In the interest ofjustice, the Court has considered the various arguments raised by Manna in the
summary judgment motion he filed in November 2013 in the context of his criminal action and
in his request for consolidation filed in the civil forfeiture action. Based on the reasons that
follow, each argument is rejected. First, Manna argues that the Defendant currency is not
subject to forfeiture because it was obtained in the context of an arrest that never resulted in a
criminal conviction (Crim No. 10-126, Docket Entry No. 34 at 3). Section 981(a)(1)(C)
provides for the civil forfeiture of property that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable
to a violation of, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 2342. Manna cites to no legal authority suggesting that
the separate issue of whether the would-be claimant is ultimately convicted of that criminal
violation is relevant in any way to civil forfeiture under Section 981(a)(l)(C); this argument is
therefore rejected. See, e.g., United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 362
(1984) (“Mulcahey’ s acquittal on charges brought under § 922(a)( 1) therefore does not estop the
government from proving in a civil proceeding that the firearms should be forfeited pursuant to
924(d). It is clear that the difference in the relative burdens of proof in the criminal and civil §
actions precludes the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.”). Next, Manna argues
that the instant civil forfeiture proceeding is untimely inasmuch as 18 U.S.C. 984 provides for
§
a one year statute of limitations and the Verified Complaint, filed in October 2013, was filed well
over one year after the Defendant currency was seized (March 2009). (Docket Entry No. 1 at
p.
2). But this civil forfeiture proceeding is brought pursuant to Section 981 (a)( 1 )(C)—not Section
984. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1621, made applicable by 18 U.S.C. 98 1(d), “no suit or action
to
§
recover any duty under section 1592(d), 1 593a(d) of this title, or any pecuniary penalty or
forfeiture of property accruing under the customs laws shall be instituted unless such suit or
action is commenced within five years after the time when the alleged offense was discovered.
Manna has therefore failed to show that this action—which was initiated within five years
from the date on which the alleged offense was discovered—is untimely. Manna’s separate
request to consolidate his criminal case and this civil forfeiture action is also denied inasmuch
as
Manna provides absolutely no legal authority warranting the consolidation of his criminal case
with a civil action—much less, a civil action in which he is not a party. In any event, there is
no
indication that Manna has been prejudiced—as he suggests—by virtue of being involved
in both
cases; to the contrary, Manna concedes that he received timely notice of the Verified Complaint
and Notice of Forfeiture in this civil action. That Manna—who is, at most, a would-be claimant
in connection with the civil forfeiture action—would prefer both matters to proceed under
the
same docket number is of no moment.
.“
4
Manna concedes that he received notice of the Verified Complaint, the warrant for arrest in rem
and the Notice of Forfeiture on or about October 24, 2013—almost a full month before the
November 22, 2013 deadline. (Docket Entry No. 5-2).
7.
“Because of the important interests served by requiring a verified statement, district
courts are entitled to insist upon procedural regularity.” Id. at 665-66. Here, Manna failed to
timely file a verified statement. Thus, Manna has not demonstrated that he has standing to contest
the instant forfeiture.
Id. at 665 (affirming district court’s entry of default judgment where
potential claimant “altogether failed to file a verified [claimi” and where the purported submission
was not timely filed and noting that “courts have repeatedly emphasized that forfeiture claimants
must strictly adhere to the filing requirements to perfect standing.”); United States v. One-Sixth
Share Qf James I Bulger In All Present & Future Proceeds ofMass Millions Lottery Ticket No.
M246233, 326 F.3d 36, 41-42 (1st Cir. 2003) (“John Bulger’s failure to file a timely claim as
required by Supplemental Rule C(6)—or indeed any claim at all until years after the judgment—
is sufficient on its own to disqualify him from intervention now.”).
8.
In the absence of a timely verified claim or a valid answer to the Government’s
Verified Complaint for forfeiture in rem, the Government is entitled to default judgment pursuant
to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., $487825.OOO in U.S. Currency,
484 F.3d at 665. Thus, the Court will enter default judgment in favor of the Government and will
order forfeiture of the Defendant currency to the Government.
Accordingly, IT IS on this 2Pt day of February 2014,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for Default Judgment and a Final Order of Forfeiture
5
[Docket Entry No. 5] is granted against the Defendant currency. No right, title or interest in the
Defendant currency shall exist in any other party; and it is further
ORDERED that the United States shall dispose of the Defendant currency in accordance
with the law.
THIS CASE IS HEREBY CLOSED.
Jose L. Linares
‘United States District Judge
6
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
